Madam, - Frank McDonald's article "The
burning issue", in your edition of February 26th, raised some
vital planning issues. Public consultation and truly democratic decision-making
are fundamental to our Constitution. It is essential that national
policy be decided through debate and discussion and be drafted into
law by those we elect for the greater good of the community at large.

However, as a member of a community which has
followed the democratic process to the letter and engaged at every
level whole-heartedly, I now realise this is not how business gets
done.

Our organisation, CHASE, has participated in
an oral planning hearing and an EPA oral hearing regarding the proposed
toxic waste incinerator in Ringaskiddy, where on behalf of the community
we presented our case, brought forward expert witnesses, cross-examined
those on the other side and debated the issues that concerned.

In his report on the first hearing, the chief
planning inspector gave 14 reasons why this facility should not get
planning permission, one of them being that he could not guarantee
that it did not pose a threat to public safety.

The proposal is also contrary to national policies
such as the National Spatial Strategy, the National Hazardous Waste
Management Plan, the proximity principle and the precautionary principle.
It is also in breach of international policies to which the Government
by way of international agreements is a consenting party. These include
the Stockholm Convention on the reduction and elimination of persistent
organic pollutants (POPs), the Rio Convention on biodiversity and
the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Yet despite this, on the nod of 10 political
appointees (the board of an Bord Pleanála ) the board overruled
the recommendation of its own inspector.

If you or I were applying for planning for a
house and the shape of the windows was wrong, we could be turned down.
Why, then, shouldn't a community which has won the argument on the
planning issues at every stage not feel frustrated and disenfranchised?

We know there are better ways forward in waste
management. There are many new technologies and approaches that will
allow us to deal with our waste in the 21st century, using 21st-century
solutions.

Communities do not want to set national policies;
they want to see them being implemented - rather than being ignored
in the interest of "Government policy" as opposed to national
policy.

We have now been through a second oral hearing
with the EPA at which the community again looked for answers to questions
we were told would be addressed at this stage of the process. Yet
when we as a community asked these questions at this stage, they were
not answered. The curious division between the respective roles of
the planning authority and the EPA has not helped in the process,
as both seem to function as if in a vacuum. This cannot lead to sound
planning decisions. Is it any wonder communities are frustrated when
they witness such inconsistency and lack of transparency? - Yours,
etc.,